People v. Blair
Annotate this CaseBlair was convicted of armed robbery for taking $965 from Kelly in 2009 by threatening the use of force while armed with a firearm. The circuit court imposed a 23-year term, which included a 15-year firearm enhancement. In another case, the Illinois Supreme Court held that the firearm enhancement was unconstitutional as in violation of the proportionate penalties clause of the Illinois Constitution, based on a comparison to the armed violence statute. Months later, the legislature amended the armed violence statute to provide that robbery cannot serve as a predicate offense for armed violence so that the two offenses no longer have identical elements which could support a proportionate penalties challenge. The appellate court agreed with Blair that the sentence was void ab initio and remanded for resentencing. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed and upheld the sentence. The firearm enhancement had merely been declared unenforceable. By amending the armed violence statute, to which the armed robbery provision had been compared, the legislature revived the firearm enhancement for armed robbery with a firearm because there was no longer any issue as to identical offense elements.
Court Description:
A Henry County jury convicted this defendant of armed robbery for taking $965 from Julie Kelly in 2009 by threatening the use of force while armed with a firearm. The circuit court imposed a 23-year term, which included a 15-year firearm enhancement. Blair complained that this statutory enhancement was unconstitutional and appealed.
In People v. Hauschild, 226 Ill. 2d 63 (2007), the Illinois Supreme Court held that this firearm enhancement was unconstitutional as in violation of the proportionate penalties clause of the Illinois Constitution of 1970, based on a comparison to the armed violence statute. Less than five months later, Public Act 95-688 (eff. Oct. 23, 2007) amended the armed violence statute to provide that robbery cannot serve as a predicate offense for armed violence. Thus, with this change, these two offenses no longer have identical elements which could support a proportionate penalties challenge. The State contended that the former 15-year sentence enhancement for armed robbery with a firearm was, thus, revived by the General Assembly, while Blair argued that it was not because the statute had been declared void ab initio by the court. The appellate court agreed with the defendant and remanded for resentencing.
In this decision, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed the appellate court and held that the sentence imposed by the circuit court could stand. As a result of the Court’s decision in Hauschild, the firearm enhancement had merely been declared unenforceable. By amending the armed violence statute, to which the armed robbery provision had been compared, the legislature revived the firearm enhancement for armed robbery with a firearm because there was no longer any issue as to identical offense elements.
The circuit court’s sentence was upheld.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.